che_shirecat

another market pops up. opensea is just reading on-chain data, just like everyone else.

read up on L2 chains - both optimistic roll-up and zk-rollups. this problem you are breaking down has been the subject of study and development for years now and is nearing implementation - https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/layer-2-scaling-zk-rollup...

this is the whole point of Ethereum and smart contracts.

> server (aka. a "centralized authority")

that's a very very liberal equivalence to make. decentralized authority in practice is just a collection of servers in aggregate that come to consensus according to a certain protocol.

centralized = one party holds all the power. decentralized = many parties, each of which do not hold all the power in isolation, therefore must come to consensus on a case-by-case basis to make decisions. equating decentralized consensus to "oh but that just means they become a centralized single party in aggregate" is an incredibly stupid take. just because I can agree with 4 other parties that one transaction is valid does not that mean that I somehow merge with all 4 of those parties into an entity that has the exact same interests for everything else. can you understand that?

that's a strawman of the parent comment's argument. and yes, if enough people believe something, it takes on real significance. e.g. enough people believe in the full faith and credit of the US Gov that backs their printed paper with numbers on it, so it takes on real significance.

I'm actually more interested in Web3 now actually after reading this lol. Sounds like the Wild West of experimentation in new systems, complete with high drama and lawlessness. Sounds fun.

What's the alternative? Alot of these people are great entertainers and terrible <anything else>. If they weren't streaming they'd be working shifts at McDonalds. If anything they're doing the most advantageous thing they could be doing.

Saving this so I can come back and laugh in 10 years

There's always going to be a segment of people who are scared of strides towards the future. And for good reason, unknowns are scary for a reason.

this is cyberpunk as hell, I love it. especially the second video. "drones in rain"

This is a great writeup of some of the story behind the Tiktok algorithm - https://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2020/8/3/tiktok-and-the-sorti...

> "I’m going to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there."

Either you didn't realize it was a quote and are lying, or you have serious issues with communicating in the English language.

> it’s still useless rhetoric

Why?

it's a quote from a movie. the premise being that as long as humans compete with each other for resources, there will be some they take most of the pie, and others that struggle for the remaining scraps. it's more a philosophical take on the human condition. the take is just that - winners and losers is arbitrary because humans will always view their successes and failures in direct comparison with others, regardless of whether from an absolute perspective their general condition or their share of the pie or the degree of wealth equality has improved. it's definitely helpful for understanding the human psyche. calling it circular reasoning misses the point.

Peak HackerNews

From a strictly rational perspective, wearing a mask in public transit is always the correct decision, you are statistically less likely to contract airbourne diseases with a mask on. You're free to attach emotional significance to the act of wearing a mask, but maybe it has the desired effect - I personally would rather not interact socially with anyone on public transit, so maybe we are both the better for it.

They are arrested in China because certain journalistic actions are illegal under Chinese law, under the (given) justification (stated or unstated) that it destabilizes civil society. For example, in the case of HK, journalists are prosecuted under Article 38 of the National Security law. That's the whole point of GP's post - legality by itself has no prima facie moral weight, an observation that applies also to whatever US laws the fed gov. is charging Assange of violating.

Here's the wording of the HK-specific law: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies."

what if I'm trying to save 75% of my income? $20k is very significant when I'm working with 62.5k a year.

What if the plot twist line is also GPT-3?

So, like LinkedIn and Reddit? (the site that the "researcher" behind these NYT-cited claims is using) [1] You could run through the toplist of apps and find hundreds that exhibit the same behavior.

Not trying to derail this via whataboutism, I just feel like the core HN ethos is lost when we mindlessly repeat the obvious geopolitically-driven narrative here without any critical thinking.

What I definitely do understand is Amazon's concerns with just the base level of data collection that's seemingly the norm in our industry. Which prompts the quesiton, why are we comfortable as a society with this sort of collection, by anyone?

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ios-14-catches-reddit-...

I keep seeing that Reddit thread linked (even the NYT is citing it now?) but still cannot for the life of me figure out what substantially TikTok does that is a concern compared to other popular apps? The guy has like 10 paragraphs of stories but no actual evidence? What is TikTok doing that somehow is flying under the app store guidelines of both Google and Apple but still a "national security concern"? Why is the only actual "evidence" that can seemingly be found, a comment from some rando on Reddit, not peer-reviewed, reproducible work from legit cybersecurity researchers? This reeks of the same scent that Bloomberg's "omg they're hackz0ring our chips!" story gave off.

Are we playing "what censorship is OK censorship" now? Who determines that "pretty clear difference?" Isn't the point of being against censorship is that nothing is above the interests of public scrutiny? Partial censorship seems fundamentally contradictory in terms of the underlying moral justification.

What would it take to get this social aspect of cafes back? Exclusivity? No-smartphone rule? Dedicated discussion times? How do you envision us bringing this back while adapting to modern social norms?

obvious, bordering on pedantic, point. OP is saying that trying to time the gap up is less likely to pay off P/L-wise than just holding the course

I jumped to Etrade a while back and it's been a relatively positive experience. Power Etrade is garbage though - consistently crashes during spike traffic times

is this sort of brain-dead Redditor "humor" what HackerNews has devolved to? At the risk of making a unsubstantive comment myself, I sometimes wish HackerNews remained a smaller discussion forum, mainstream online visibility seems to inevitably attract flies.

case in point: the resurgent popularity of lo-fi hip hop, which heavily uses harmonic distortions and phonographic imperfections as a sort of mood/atmosphere setter

An different but related scene was the RSPS (Runescape private server) community that created replications of the game with a reverse-engineered client. Developing private server code was my first experience with programming and with backend software problem spaces like networking, concurrency/event handling, etc.

> the value you get from playing video games, or watching anime comes at a cost. Some people incur a huge cost, as they become addicted.

you could say this about almost any activity in life. the fact that facebook adds nothing meaningful to your life doesn't mean that others feel even remotely the same way, there's no need for the social media bashing that gets regurgitated ad nauseum across reddit/hackernews.